Lars Otto Naess

This article aims to examine and further develop the concept of praxis – processes to critique the status quo and search for alternatives – in relation to transformative adaptation to climate change. The need for transformative change to support climate change adaptation is clear. However, there are gaps in our understanding of connections between, on the one side, individual and household-level action, and on the other, the broader structural change necessary to support transformative adaptation, and in particular, how these processes unfold on the ground. We use praxis to interrogate these connections, drawing on empirical data from ‘below’ in four sites across India and Bangladesh, all representing uncertain environments, and all considered ‘marginal’: Kutch, Mumbai and the Sundarbans. We focus on praxis as manifest in contestations with the state/capital across these sites, proposing a heuristic of three Cs: confrontation, compromise and coalition. We find that the relative emphasis of these three vary widely across the sites and discuss the characteristics of these unfolding processes in terms of tensions, trade-offs and synergies. We see agency employed and, in some cases, expanded to support transformative change, while in some cases, risks of maladaptive outcomes are observed. The article’s contributions are twofold; first, to expand on the use of praxis in its opening of structure–agency linkages and tensions, and second, to use praxis as a term to better understand processes of adaptation and their transformative prospects, particularly nuancing the notion of maladaptation beyond its common interpretation as ‘unintended’ outcomes of well-intended processes.

This chapter discusses linkages between agricultural innovation and adaptation to climate change. Innovations have always formed the basis for agriculture to survive and thrive in variable climatic, social, and political environments. However, there are gaps in the literature on how innovation can support adaptation outcomes that are socially inclusive and equitable, in a situation where innovation processes take place in negotiated and often contested spaces. This chapter presents a framework for analysing agricultural innovations in relation to action on climate change, centred around the following three points: (1) legitimacy and relevance, (2) flexibility and robustness, and (3) potential for broadening out and opening up transformative pathways. While there is substantial potential for agricultural innovation to help improve adaptation outcomes, questions of equity and inclusion, and the extent to which innovations can help improve spaces for participation and negotiation among poor and marginalised farmers, need to be central to the analysis.

This chapter discusses linkages between agricultural innovation and adaptation to climate change. Innovations have always formed the basis for agriculture to survive and thrive in variable climatic, social, and political environments. However, there are gaps in the literature on how innovation can support adaptation outcomes that are socially inclusive and equitable, in a situation where innovation processes take place in negotiated and often contested spaces. This chapter presents a framework for analysing agricultural innovations in relation to action on climate change, centred around the following three points: (1) legitimacy and relevance, (2) flexibility and robustness, and (3) potential for broadening out and opening up transformative pathways. While there is substantial potential for agricultural innovation to help improve adaptation outcomes, questions of equity and inclusion, and the extent to which innovations can help improve spaces for participation and negotiation among poor and marginalised farmers, need to be central to the analysis.

Agricultural commercialisation is seen as one of the most important avenues for fundamental structural transformation and development in sub-Saharan Africa, and is assumed to help enhance a wide array of household welfare indicators among rural households whose livelihoods directly derive from agriculture. Over recent years, sub-Saharan African countries have experimented with different models of agricultural commercialisation but, while there have been some success stories, the performance track record of agricultural commercialisation has generally been dismal. While there is a growing literature on drivers and obstacles for commercialisation at regional and national levels, less is known about how these factors play out in particular value chains, where there is still a need to better understand what drives or hinders the success of commercialisation. A set of APRA studies were carried out to address this gap, exploring the dynamics of crop value chains as a way of understanding the drivers, obstacles and pathways to agricultural commercialisation. A total of 11 case studies were carried out over 2020–21 in six countries, namely Ethiopia (rice), Ghana (oil palm and cocoa), Malawi (groundnuts), Nigeria (maize, cocoa and rice), Tanzania (rice and sunflower) and Zimbabwe (tobacco and maize). This briefing paper summarises some of the key findings from these studies.

The implications of climate change for agricultural commercialisation – and the implications of agricultural commercialisation for climate change – are profound. On the one hand, agricultural production is, by nature, highly sensitive to climate change and variability. On the other, commercial agricultural production for international food markets is one of the lead sectors for generating greenhouse gas emissions that are driving anthropogenic climate change. This presents the following conundrum: the burden of the changing climate falls most heavily on smallholder farmers in countries across sub-Saharan Africa, where agricultural commercialisation is seen as an important route out of poverty. What, then, are the prospects for climate-resilient, commercially-viable smallholder agriculture in sub-Saharan African countries which are facing this dilemma? We have explored this question through APRA research produced in Singida, Tanzania, and Mazowe, Zimbabwe.

Climate change scenarios have significant implications for the livelihoods and food security of particular groups in society and will necessitate a range of adaptation actions. While there is a significant literature on the social as well as biophysical factors and limits to adaptation, less is known about the interactions between these, and what such interactions mean for the prospects of achieving sustainable and resilient food systems. This paper is an attempt at addressing this gap by examining changing biophysical and social factors, with specific consideration of vulnerable groups, across four case studies (Ghana, Malawi, Norway and Spain). In each case, future climate change scenarios and associated biophysical limits are mapped onto four key social factors that drive vulnerability and mediate adaptation, namely, scale, history, power and politics, and social differentiation. We then consider what the interaction between biophysical limits and socio‐political dynamics means for the options for and limits to future adaptation, and how climate may interact with, and reshape, socio‐political elements. We find that biophysical limits and socio‐political factors do not operate in isolation, but interact, with dynamic relationships determining the ‘space’ or set of options for sustainable adaptation. By connecting the perspectives of biophysical and social factors, the study illuminates the risks of unanticipated outcomes that result from the disregard of local contexts in the implementation of adaptation measures. We conclude that a framework focusing on the space for sustainable adaptation conditioned by biophysical and social factors, and their interactions, can help provide evidence on what does and does not constitute sustainable adaptation, and help to counter unhelpful narratives of climate change as a sole or dominant cause of challenges in food systems.